Few people remember the days of horrendous delays in Europe caused by the explosive growth of demand in the latter part of the 70s and early 80s. States tried to cope with the problem as best they could but the individual efforts made things worse as often as they helped in resolving the logjam. Clearly, a region-wide solution was needed. This solution was the Central Flow Management Unit (CFMU), designed and operated by EUROCONTROL on behalf of the ECAC States and with the full blessing of ICAO.
Now, several decades later, the future of the CFMU as a concept and as an operating unit may hang in the balance.
From protecting sectors to ensuring flight efficiency
The first attempt at keeping the ATC system from falling apart under the relentless traffic peaks went under the tab “flow control”. Indeed, this was not much more than a crude quenching of traffic flows which did eliminate sector overloads but left hundreds of aircraft stranded on the ground, delays skyrocketing.
The commissioning of the CFMU brought not only a regionally centralised awareness of the overall situation but also a change in how sector overloads were prevented. The departure slots disbursed by the CFMU are based on several considerations, including alternative routings and aircraft operator preferences, justifying the claim that traffic flows are now being managed rather than just being constrained as in the days of basic flow control.
The CFMU may have its faults but over the years it has shown the power of collecting information and the correct application of that information in ATM decision making.
While the protection of sectors from overload remains as important as ever, ensuring that this protection happens in a way that has the smallest possible impact on flight efficiency has gained importance, raising it to a similar priority in daily operations.
To-day the CFMU must make sure that controllers are protected while the aircraft, those ultra sophisticated business tools, are subject to only the least amount of hindrance.
A tall order on any day!
Network management as opposed to flow management
The environment in which the CFMU has to operate is changing also in another way. The step from flow control to flow management represented a paradigm change. ATM is now changing from managing flows to managing the complete network. Another paradigm change that is possibly even more significant than the first one was.
The term network here refers to the totality of the facilities, services, actors, procedures, operational units, airports and aircraft, as well as the traffic flows themselves that constitute the air traffic management environment.
The need to manage the network rather than just the flows came from the realization that no element in the ATM environment is immune from the influence of all the others and tweaking just one part can deliver only limited improvement. Armed with this intelligence one shudders at the memory of the time when airports were not considered to be an integral part of ATM…
Will the CFMU survive?
There can be little doubt that if we had to build something like the CFMU to-day, it would probably be a different kind of operation. Modern data management techniques and intelligent end user applications would in all likelihood deliver a more streamlined service with a higher degree of data level integration with ANSP, airport and airspace user systems.
The CFMU systems were designed many years ago for the “flow management” paradigm and they do a good job of helping airspace users get the most from the limited resources available.
Not that the network management paradigm is alien to the CFMU. Far from it! Several important projects and initiatives are focused on moving things along in that direction.
The SESAR Concept of Operations envisages a firmly net-centric system which requires network management as one of its pillars.
These days there are only two institutions in the world entrusted with managing flows on a regional basis: the CFMU in Europe and the Command Centre in the USA. They both have found a role in new developments when Collaborative Decision Making came along. Their survival will depend on how well they can adapt to the latest paradigm change, the move to network management.
But things are not that simple.
Bending the paradigm change?
It is no secret that not everyone in Europe is a friend of the CFMU. On the surface, there is no big opposition but it is exactly the paradigm change that might be used, or rather abused, to pull the teeth of the CFMU lion.
Yes, the CFMU must become the network manager, however, unlike the US Command Centre which will continue to deal with ATS units and airspace users directly, a future CFMU would see a new layer of flow management coming in under it, the famous Functional Airspace Block function liaising downwards and upwards, effectively taking over the old functions of the CFMU on a sub-regional level.
What seems to be forgotten in this development is the original driver for moving from flow management to network management. Flow management is part of network management and splitting things apart is not necessarily a step in the right direction.
Even the biggest FAB in Europe will have most of its traffic crossing the boundaries into other FABs or areas that do not have a FAB. FAB level flow management looks and feels very much like what we had before the CFMU came along. The end result might also very well be the same, regardless of a network-manager sitting on top of the pile.
Combine the concept of FABs and the concept of network management the wrong way and within a few years’ time Europe will be scrambling to re-invent the Central Flow (sorry… Network) Management Unit!
Good article, opportunities and threats to CFMU well described.
The Network manager concept comes with different interpretations from the European Commission, ANSPs and airspace users. It can mean everything to do with ATM in Europe which is not SESAR (e.g. synchronisation of all new operational & technical developments) or a focus on optimising, operating and improving the use of European airspace in the most cost effective way.
EUROCONTROL will play a key coordination role in the wider scope of NM; CFMU has started to evolve towards the latter model. It needs the authority to act, derived from Single European Sky and the confidence in its actions from the ANSPs and aircraft operators.
CFMU is already much more than flow management, it is intial flight plan processing, airspace and flight data management. It is evolving into a European network operations management function e.g. improving flight efficiency by offering airspace utilisation options.
FABs, when they come, have an important partnership role to play in ATM network management. Deciding on roles and responsibilties on the basis of how to deliver the most appropriate network operations on the day, every day, requires maturity and leadership.It will not be helped by perceptions of ‘smash and grab’ attempts.
……Quote ….Combine the concept of FABs and the concept of network management the wrong way and within a few years’ time Europe will be scrambling to re-invent the Central Flow (sorry… Network) Management Unit!…..
well spoken !